Back
ALEXANDER THOMAS, SOPHY THOMAS
Saleena W/o. Thangal Kunju – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Alexander Thomas, J.)
1. The prayers in the aforecaptioned Writ Petition (Criminal), seeking for issuance of writs of Habeas Corpus and Certiorari to challenge the order preventively detaining the detenue in this case under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) KAA(P) Act, 2007 are as follows:
(ii) Issue a writ of habeas corpus commanding the respondents to produce the body of the detenu, Ijass, aged 31 years, S/o. Thangal Kunju, Thekathil Veettil, Perumanthazha, Varavila, Clapana Village, Kollam, the son of the petitioner who is illegally detained in Central Prison, Viyur before this Hon’ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
(iii) grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case including the costs of this Writ Petition (Criminal).”
2. Heard Sri. M.H.Hanis, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.A.Anas, learned Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. The mother of the detenue in this case has moved this WP(Crl). The b
Expression “compelling reasons” in context of making an order for preventive detention of a person already in custody implies that there must be cogent materials before detaining authority.
Point of Law : Order should be passed under Section 3(1) to preventively detain detenu as he is likely to commit further prejudicial anti-social activities.
It is well settled that an order of detention can be validly passed against a person, who is already in custody, subject to condition that detaining authority must necessarily be aware of fact that d....
Detenu will satisfy definitional parameters of “known goonda” as per Section 2(o) read with Section 2(j) of Act.
Point of Law : Detenue is already in custody in some other case, at time when the preventive detention order was passed, and should also satisfy the other parameter
If person concerned is in judicial custody and if there is likelihood of his being released shortly, then detaining authority may stay its chance for a short while and think of passing an order of de....
Law is well settled that legal parameters should be fulfilled by detaining authority to justify a case of preventive detention, where an accused is already under judicial remand in a crime.
Statutory compliance is essential in preventive detention; mere allegations of delay and non-compliance with procedural safeguards do not automatically invalidate the order.
Section 2(p) of Act reads as “known rowdy” means any person, who had been, by reason of acts done within previous seven years as calculated from date of order imposing any restriction or detention un....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
